- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:26:31 -0600
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 21:49 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:35:20AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > and this one open: > > ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft, > > propose to WG. > > Yes, this is still open. I had no 'net access from Friday morning till > Monday afternoon, about 2 hrs ago, which limited the progress I could > make. > > FWIW, I'm relatively happy -- pace a few details of representation in > WSDL 2.0 (how do you spell rdf:RDF as a return type, and how can you > have more than one possible return type) -- with the WSDL as it is for > describing the interfaces. The HTTP bindings need to be completed, > which I expect to do this week, and I intend to add SOAP bindings next > week. But I think the interfaces could be discussed with an eye toward > at least a straw poll from the WG. > > > 6. privacy section for protocol spec > > > > ACTION EricP: propose "privacy considerations" for SPARQL protocol > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0416.html > > > > not much response... everybody agrees? > > I think it's pretty good and intend it to go into the protocol draft > ASAP. I've been concentrating on getting the WSDL right, then moving > to draft prose around it. > > > 7. issue: wsdlAbstractProtocol, fromUnionQuery > > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#wsdlAbstractProtocol > > > > ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft, > > propose to WG. > > This is repeated from above; same issue, afaik. Right; above it's mentioned as a correction to last week's minutes; here it's for discussion. > > > progress: > > sparql-protocol.wsdl updated Kendall Clark (Monday, 21 March) > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0382.html > > > > perhaps it addresses fromUnionQuery? > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#fromUnionQuery > > IIRC, Andy mentioned some issue with that, but I don't recall the > details and can't find them in email. OK, well, meanwhile, I'm interested to know if it addresses fromUnionQuery to your own satisfaction... > > 8. issue: xmlAbstractSyntax > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#xmlAbstractSyntax > > > > Note new issue, progress, discuss expectations, recruit owner? > > I intended these to be progress on this issue: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparqlx.xsd > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparqlx.rnc > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparqlx.rng > > Hmm, that's a bit weak, actually. They *are* progress over the first > drafts I sent to the list, in that they accord with Andy's abstract > syntax and they are valid schema instances. > > They are the same schema spelled 3 ways: XML Schema, Relax NG compact, > Relax NG XML. > > Again, sorry that I didn't respond to this agenda sooner; but with my > home 'net access being down since Friday, and the holiday weekend, I > wasn't able to before now. no trouble. > > Kendall Clark -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 03:26:32 UTC